The URL can be used to link to this page

01-22-07OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION Meeting Agenda Brookview Community Center Monday, January 22, 2007 7:00 p.m. I. Call to Order II. Roll Call Roger Bergman Jim Johnson Bob Mattison Roger McConico Jim Vaughan, Vice Chair Tom Zins III. Agenda Changes or Additions IV. Approval of Minutes — November 27, 2006 V. Recreation Report — Sue Cook VI. Brookview Community Center Facility Assessment VII. Park and Recreation Facility Study Subcommittee Reports a. Comprehensive Plan b. Survey Results 1. Decision Resources 2. OSRC Park Planning Citizen Survey VIII. Old Business a. Deer Task Force b. Regional Trail c. Brookview Performance Area IX. New Business a. Seminars, Workshops and Continuing Education b. Annual Report X. Adjournment Kelly Kuebelbeck Jerry Sandler, Chair mkomlley OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Brookview Community Center Monday, November 27, 2006 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER Sandler called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 11. ROLL CALL Present: Roger Bergman, Jim. Johnson, Roger McConico, Jerry Sandler, Jim Vaughan, Tom Zins, Rick Jacobson, Director of Park and Recreation; and Sue Cook, Recreation Supervisor. Absent: Kelly Kuebelbeck and Bob Mattison. 1111. AGENDA CHANGES OR ADDITIONS Jacobson added List of Completed Priority Items from the Comprehensive Plan to Old Business. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 23, 2006 Sandler made two corrections to paragraph one, sixth sentence under Comprehensive Plan; thing should be things and `to be' was added after or. MOTION: Moved by Bergman and seconded by McConico to approve the October 23`d meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. V. RECREATION REPORT — Sue Cook Cook highlighted programs she coordinates or is involved with. Programs include: Davis Community Center open gyms, Youth Basketball, Tennis programs, Concerts -in -the -Park, Adopt -A -Park, Science Explorers, Cheer America, Music for Everyone and individual adult programs such as Yoga, Pilates, Knitting classes, Belly Dancing, and Hypnosis classes. Cook said participation at Davis Community Center has been great and continues to grow. She explained that nine concerts were run through the Concerts -in -the -Park program. Lowest number in attendance was 40 with the average over 100. Cook said the winter brochure is currently at the printer and should arrive in the homes next week. Cook explained the Music For Everyone program has been going on for over 15 years. VI. RECREATION DEPARTMENT FEES Jacobson reviewed the current and past fees and explained how fees are determined. MOTION: Moved by Johnson and seconded by Vaughan to accept the fees as proposed. Motion carried unanimously. VI1. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITY STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS McConico distributed and discussed the results from the Robbinsdale Area Youth Baseball Association survey. Discussion then focused on the results and comments from the survey. Jacobson mentioned that Kuebelbeck has tabulated all the results from the Citizen Survey. The results were then forwarded to Decision Resources for review and comment. He said 355 Citizen Surveys were received back from residents. Jacobson said the city wide phone survey conducted by Decision Resources will be made to 400 people with calls beginning the end of November. Sandler said he'd like to gather all the information collected and come up with a game plan for making a recommendation for the Park Master Plan. VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. Deer Task Force Update Vaughan said he and Margaret Macneale presented the Deer Management Plan to the Council. The Council voted 5-0 to approve the resolution to go ahead with the Deer Management Plan as recommended in the Deer Task Force Report. Jacobson said the City will be hiring a contractor to come in and begin removing deer after the first of the year. B. Regional Trail Update Jacobson said construction is well under way with asphalt being laid and telephone poles and wires being moved. Jacobson also discussed complications that have arisen. C. Brookview Performance Area Jacobson said the Performance Area Committee is working on fund raising for the proposed venue. D. Completed Priority Items from Comprehensive Plan As requested by the Commission at a previous meeting, Jacobson discussed completed priority items from the Comprehensive Plan and answered questions. IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by McConico and seconded by Bergman to adjourn at 8:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 2 City of Golden Valley Wold Architects and Engineers Facility Analysis November 8, 2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose: Wold Architects and Engineers was hired to provide a complete analysis of the City of Golden Valley's buildings. The purpose of the analysis was to provide the City with an analysis of the condition of the buildings using the following ten primary areas of inspection: • Site • Exterior • Interior • ADA Accessibility • Life Safety • Hazardous materials • Mechanical Systems • Electrical Systems • Program • Technology Process: With a team consisting of architects, a mechanical engineer, and an electrical engineer, during the months of July, August, and September 2006, Wold Architects and Engineers visited the following buildings to analyze their condition and systems: • City Hall • Public Safety • Streets and Park Maintenance Department • Utility Department • Vehicle Maintenance • Community Center/Golf Operations • Golf Maintenance • Fire Station #2 • Fire Station #3 • Warehouse and Animal Impound For the program area, Wold Architects and Engineers interviewed numerous City staff associated with each of the various buildings and/or building operations. Each of the inspection/analysis categories was broken down into two sections. The first dealt specifically with the "analysis" or description of the problem. The second section provided a recommended solution as well as a project cost associated with the solution. General Findings: Generally, the condition of the buildings reflects what would be expected based on their age. However, each of the buildings has issues concerning everything from necessary site and exterior work to indoor air quality issues. These items are incorporated into the overall analysis. TB/GI_GoidenValley/062074/rets/executive summary Page 1 Commission No. 062074 City of Golden Valley Wold Architects and Engineers Facility Analysis November 8, 2006 The analysis concluded as follows: • The building exteriors need repairs, which can extend their life cycle. • The mechanical and electrical systems need upgrading and modifications, which will improve the worker environment. • Considerable attention can be focused on improving functionality, accessibility, safety and efficiency for delivery of City services. Although we have not concluded specific priorities, we will embark on working with the City to establish priorities for recommendation, funding and implementation. There is one specific facility that clearly highlights the question of the feasibility of further investment in the needed upgrades and repairs. When reviewed along with the program needs, the Brookview Community Center/Golf Operations building stands out from the rest in that incorporating the needed improvements/maintenance items along with the program needs of the two existing operations occurring within the building would exceed the cost of a new building of the current size. Attached is a Summary of the Overall Costs by building and category. Recommendation: Although immediate implementation of solutions would be convenient, we recognize the aggregate cost of such an improvement plan is difficult. We therefore recommend the following Incremental steps: 1. Establish a task force to prioritize solutions and make recommendations to the City Council for implementation. 2. Create a capital improvement plan. 3. Implement projects that meet this plan. TB/CI_GoldenValley/062074hpts/executive_summary Page 2 Commission No. 062074 City of Golden Valley Wold Architects and Engineers Facility Analysis November 27, 2006 FACILITY ANALYSIS PRIORITIZATION CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PRIORITIZATION CATEGORIES Priority 1 (0-2 years) These are the "Must be Done" items. The following items are typically included as part of the Priority 1 items. - Items that must be complete to provide access into the building, to the curriculum within the building, to access a restroom or to obtain a drink of water. - Items that must be done because further deterioration will create higher future repair costs or will damage other areas in the building. - Items that are of hazardous nature that is posing a significant impact on building occupants. - Items that must be done to address Indoor Air Quality and/or rooms with no ventilation. Priority 2 (2-5 years) • These are the "Should be Done" • The following items are typically included as part of the Priority 2 items. - Modification required to meet state code guidelines. - Material or system that currently functions but will require replacement or maintenance within 5 years. - items that if replaced result in a payback in 10 years or less. - Minimal or inadequate exhaust and ventilation in other areas lacking adequate ventilation. - Modifications required to support future modernizations. Priority 3 (6-10 years) These are the "Would Like to Do items. The following items are typically included as part of the Priority 3 items. - Material or system that currently functions but will require replacement or maintenance 6-10 years. - Item(s) that if replaced result in a -payback in 10 years or more. - Removal of hazardous items affected by other changes occurring in Priority 3 items. Priority 4 (within 10 years) These are "Desirable to Do" items. The following items are typically included as part of the Priority 4 items. Items necessary to meet the full requirements of State Building Accessibility Codes. Aesthetic items which impact the visual environment. Removal of any hazardous items that are affected by other changes occurring in Priority 4. SM/CI GoldenValleyl062074lrpts/FacilityAnalysis Page 1 Commission No. 062074 City of Golden Valtey, Wold Architects and. Engineers FNovember 27, 2006 Facility Analysis Priority 5 ($1000 or under) • These are items that are typically under $1000 in cost that could be included in on going projects. Priority 6 These are any additional Owner defined priority items. Priority N (Non -Prioritized) • These are items which is elective/aesthetic or programmatic which can be done at any time. Typical items include extensive renovating, additions or upgrades to air conditioning and technology upgrades. swcl GoldenValley/062074/rpts/FacilityAnalysis Page 2 Commission No. 062074 C9 City of Golden Valley Community Center/ Executive Summary Golf Operations E1 0 Community Center/ Golf +Operations S Priority. 1 $5,000 1 Reset timber dividers in walking path near community center main entrance to be flush with Y% 2 surrounding walking surface. (Allowance) Reset retaining walls that line walking path that leads to main entry of community center. (Allolvance) Priority: 1 $45,000 3 Reconstruct the retaining wall, replace broken or damaged block in retaining wall Iocated near Provide additional drainage behind Priority: 1 $45,0D0 southeast entry to Golf Shop; tuckpoint mortar where necessary. 4 wall to minimize efflorescence. Rework the mulch to provide at least four inches of clearance between wood mulch and lowest point of Priority: 5 §iding on east side of building. (Allowitae) 5 Reconstruct and repitch concrete patio outside Room 102 (Willow Froom) to, slope away from the Priority:;1 $101500 building. Cut a trough in the patio fat downspout to empty into and carry water away from the patio. 6 • Modify and replace wooden seating surfaces and backrest/railing at perimeter of concrete patio Outside Priority.2 $715 Room 102 with a more durable material and to create a "guard rail." (60 L.F.) 7 Rehang west door in north wall and door in east wall at fenced mechanical enclosure on northeast Priority: S $500 corner of the building for better operation. 8 Relocate door from westwtdl to north wall at fenced mechanical enclosure at center of building's north "Life Priority: 4 $0 side. Cost for this item is included in the "modification of emergency exiting paths" item in the 9 Safety" section. Modify metal railings at wood deck and attached steps to meet currant code requirements for a guard Priority: 2 $15,000 10 railing. (300 L.F.) Recommend replacement and correctly repair flashing on top of gazebo half -height walls. (t 5 L.F.) Priority: 1 $750 11 Replace miscut metal soffit on north side of gazebo. (25 L.F.) Priarity:l $500 12 Replace dented metal termination trim pieces located at the opening of the gazebo. Remove existing Priority: 1 $1,500 caulk and recaulk joints (80 L.F.) an gazebo's metal siding --,especially at the top and bottom column cover intersections. EXTERIOR 1 Replace the two 2" x 2" steel columns that support canopy over community center main entry. Priority- $2,050 2 Repair metal siding joint detail at southwest corner of the Golf Shop. Replace metal tertnination trim Priority: 5 $750 pieces around double door on the east wall of the lower level. Remove existing caulk and recaulk all metal siding intersections at Golf Shop. 3 Excavate ground outside lower level conference room and apply a waterproof membrane to extenar of i'rioriry: t $5,000 wall that will be below grade. 4 Remove and reapply parging,on wall at northeast corner of lower level. (350 S.F.), Priority: 1• $2,000 5 Tuck point joints of split -faced block and caulk concrete caps'"Ound entire base of clubhouse. Priority;l $22,000 6 Provide metal flashing over concrete caps around entire base of clubhouse to prevent further water Priority.1 $3,500 infiltration damage and efflorescence. (250 LF) 7 Replace middle section of drip edge on south side of gazebo roof. Priority; 5 $100 8 Scrape and repaint plywood scoreboard on south wall of Golf Shop. Priority:5 $50 9 Replace storm window at east wall of Seniors Room. Priority:5 $750 10 Replace roof areas "D" and "E" within one to two years. (550 S.F.) Priority: 1 $10,0()0 11 Replace roof areas "A", "B" and "C" within one to five years. (14,300 S.F.) Prouty: 2 $215,000 INTERIOR 1 Correct the water infiltration problems at four locations in the lower level: Priority: t $G,S00 2 Remove carpeting in overflow warm beverage storage area, and dry paper goods storage area, and. Priority; 2 $2,000 adjacent ofCicelstorage space. Repaint concrete floor with epoxy coating. (1;030 S.F.) Pa t' I6 Cot mt. No. 062174 Printed: 12t412006 g PrintRepnri5elccmt City of Golden Valley Executive Summary Community Center/ Golf Operations Priority; 5 $850 3 Replace carpet in lower level administration office. (200 S.F.) 4 Clean (or replace if necessary) dirty and marred vinyl composite tiles in rooms 108 and 113, also at beverage storage room (330 ST.). Replace cracked and loose vinyl composite tiles in Room 110 and in storage room located directly cast of Room 101 (175 S.F.). $ Clean grout surrounding floor tiles in both upper level toilet rooms. 6 Patch concrete floor at east door on east wall of lower level (200 S.F.). 7 Replace cracked ceramic wall base tiles in lower level toilet rooms (approximately 80 pieces). Repair cracks in gypsum board above windows in Room 122, prime and paint. g Replace ceramic wall tiles that are missing in upper level custodial closet located between toilet rooms (approximately 20 pieces). 10Refinish the wood trim sutmunding'windows in rooms 101, 102 and upper level offices. Repair or replace damaged wood window trim in rooms t41 od;102. 11 Where water stains exist, prime and paint textured gypsum board ceilings in lower level administration office and Seniors Room storage closet (approximately 250 S.F.). 12 Replace water stained acoustical ceiling tiles in Room 117. Replace ceiling tiles and grid in upper level kitchen (200 S.F.) 13 Replace missing and damaged glued -up ceiling tiles in overflow warm beverage storage area and adjacent office/storage area (110 S.F.). 14 Replace single -patted glass with double -paned, insulated glass in rooms 101 and 102 (60 SF). 15 Replace door bumper in upper level men 'a toilet room. 16 Repair and reinforce the existing wood floor structure beneath the Park and Recreation offices to correct a depression in floor in this area (approximately 200 S.F.). 17 Repair folding door on storage closet located in Room 111 (Senior Citizens Coordinator) for better operation. 18 Provide proper temperature control within the upper level offices. (Allowance) 19 Replace (4) awnings at windows of Park and Recreation office with awnings that allow windows to open fully. 20 Replace plastic laminate on counter top in Seniors Room. 21 Replace rusted toilet partitions in lower level men's toilet room with new solid Plastic stalls. ACCESSIBILITY I Recommend site modifications and regrading to provide a fully accessible, properly sloped ramp for access to the upper level Community Center.: 2 Install interior signage at all doors on both levels. 3 Recommend renovating the upper'and lower level toilet rooms to meet current handicap accessibility requirements. 4 Provide one handicap-accessible'hgh/low drinking fountain on each level. 5 Recommend renovating the men's and women's locker room showers to have one fully -accessible shower stall. 6 Recommend constructing ramps from Room 102 to the deck and from the patio area to the deck. 7 Other accessibility items discussed in the JQ-P report and not listed above should be implemented; provide an allowance for improvements.. LIFE SAFETY I Provide adequately -sized landings at all three doors in south and west wails of Room 102 that are flush with the threshold of the doors. 2 Create emergency exiting paths that lead directly out of the enclosed mechanical spaces at both the northeast comer9f the building- and at the center of the building's north side. comm No- 067074 Printed: 1214!2(106 Page 17 Priority.5 $875 Priority. 5 $100 Priority:5 $450 Priority5 $400 priority:5 $300 Priority.5 $150 Priority.I woo Priority; 1 $2,500 Priority:2 $1,000 Priority:1 $700 Priority: 3 $11200 Priority: 5 $25 Priority; 1 $15,000 priority:5 $200 Priority: N' $10,000 Priority: $3,000 Priority:5 $350 Priority. 2 $3,500 Priority: 2, $80,000 priority.2 $52,000 Priority:1 $6,500 Priority- 1 $12,000 Priority: t $13,000 Priority, 2 $16,500 Priority3 $45,000 Priority.1 $1,500 Priority:1 $5,000 PrintRcporlscteclor 0 OCity of Golden 'Valley Community Center/ Executive Summary Golf Operations 3 Reconfigure stair in Room 102 to provide a top landing that is flush with the threshold of the door. Priority: 1 $1,200 4. Raise floor at both doors on lower level nt northeast corner of the building to provide a surface that is Priority: 5 $450 flush with the threshold of each door; this elevated portion of floor should be adequately sized to - accommodate the swing of the door. 5 Reconfigure stair that is located between the concrete patio and wood deck at the southwest corner of . Priority: 5 $250 the building so that all steps meet allowable height specifications. 6 Remove the projecting casework in lower level north corridor to conform with current accestbility Priority: 5 $SO guidelines. Repair wail. Priority:5 $750 7 Remove steps at northeast corner of building and replace with code compliant steps. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS 1 Replace the Lennox packaged air handlers with new variable volume packaged air handlers to improve Priority: 4 $89,000 energy efficiency. This item includes an allowance to provide better weather protection to extend equipment lifespan. 2 Replace the existing modular hot water boiler with a new high -efficiency condensing boiler plant, and Priority 3 $80,400 replace the aging hot water pumps. 3 Replace the two Trane multizone units with new multizone units that have integral dehumidification Priority: 3 $140,400 through either an energy recovery wheel or pre -cooling coil and reheat. This item would include separately ducted fresh air intake hoods for improved air quality and ventilation control - 4 Replace the existing exhaust fan for the lower level men's and women's toilettlocker rooms with two Priority: N $12,000 new separately ducted fans to decrease noise transmission and provide better distributed direct exhaust in these areas. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS I Replace the existing pneumatic control system and all valves and actuators with a new electronic Priority: N $200,000 building automation system and extend controls to the major equipment to monitor and allow adjustment for the operation of the building mechanical systems from a central location. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS I Reinsulate portions of the lower level domestic bot and cold water to prevent condensation and heat Priority: a $3,804 loss. 2 Provide electronic infrared operators for all water closets (I1 total). Priority: N $10,000 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS Priority: 1 $200 I Provide new blank panel over exposed bus section. 2 Replace load center at boiler room entrance. Priority: 2 $2'700 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS Priority: l $6,700 1 Replace existing exterior lighting on building. 2 Provide additional emergency lighting in corridors and near office exits. Priority: l $3,400 3 Provide two (2) additional exit light Fixtures on lower level. Priority: 3 $800 4 Replace T-12 fixtures with T -S fixtures. Priority: 2 $39,100 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS Priority N $lb 900 I Replace existing fire alarm system with new digital, addressable system. Existing AN devices to remain. PROGRAM Priority: N $78,000 1 (GCG) Golf Shop: Increase the size of lite retail selling space from about 400 S.F. to about 800 S.F. Priority: N $30,000 2 (GCC) Golf Shop: Increase the size of the merchandise storage room from about 30 S.F, to between 150-200 S.F. Priority: N $19,500 3 (GCC) Golf Shop: Provide additional space for rental club storage (approximately 100 S.F.), Pae 18 PrintReportSotector Conn. No. 062074 Ptinttxl: 1214/2006g WU 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2(► 21 City of Golden Valley Executive Summary Community Center/ Golf Operations Priority: N 535,000 (GCC) Kitchen and Food Service: Provide a larger and better -equipped space for dry food storage. The existing space is about 30 S.F.; increase to 150 S.F. (OCC) Kitchen and Food Service: provide a larger dry paper goods storage space that meets code requirements for storage of such goods - locate the space adjacent to the kitchen. The existing space is 290 S.F. Increase to 350 S.F. (GCC) Kitchen and Food Service: Increase the size of the kitchen from about 400 S.F. to about 1,000 S.F. The larger kitchen should incorporate: more space to store catering and food preparation equipment, space for a larger cooking grill, a three-compar mcnt sink, and a larger freezer - (GCC) Kitchen and Food Service: Provide a dining space that can accommodate at least 150 people, the space should be adjacent to the kitchen. The current dining space is about 930 S.F. (not including the serving area) and can hold about 62 people. Add another 2,000 S.F: (GCC) Kitchen and Food Service: Relocate pressurized beverage lines to be closer to the serving point. The existing distance is about 60% W. Add a cooler/room adjacent to the serving area. (GCC) Kitchen and Food Service: Increase the size of the walk-in cooler. (GCC) Kitchen and Food Service: Increase the size of the walk-in freezer. (OCC) Kitchen and Food Service: Relocate one of the ice machines to be located adjacent to the kitchen. (AIlowance)' (OCC) 'Kitchen and Food Service: Provide a single storage space for warm beverage storage. (Allowance) (OCC) Building Maintenance: Provide a larger custodial supply closet - the current space is about 35 S.F. (Allowance) (GCC) Building Maintenance: Provide a workspace for carpentry, repair, and maintenance projects. (Allowance) (GCC) Locker Room Facilities: Modify women's toilet mom to meet current accessibility codes. Increase the number of toilets from three to four. (Included with a=essibility) (GCC) Locher Room Facilities: Modify men's toilet room to meet current accessibility codes. Increase the number of urinals from two to three. (Included with accessibility) (GCC) Locker Room Facilities: Decrease the amount of men's showers from five to four. Increase the amount of women's showers from three to four. All showers should be in individual bays. {included with accessibility) (GCC) Locker Room Facilities: ' Provide 50 lockers that can hold a set of golf clubs in both locker rooms. (GCC) Office Spaces: Provide six (6) additional private offices at 120 S.F. each. (GCC) Office Spaces: Provide an open office space that can accommodate three staff coordinators. (Allowance) (GCC) office Spaces: Provide a conference room that can hold up to twenty (20) people. The existing, space is about 190 S.F. and accommodates about ten (10) people. 22 (GCC) Office Spaces: Provide an employee break room, with personal lockers. Thea are currently about 50 golf operations employees. (Allowance) Priority: N $25,000 Priority: N $152,000 Priority: N $390,000 Priority: N $25,000 Priority: N $19,500 Priority: N $19,500 Priority: N $5,000 Priority: N $5,000 Priority: N $15,000 Priority: N $10,000 Priority; N $0 Priority: N $0 Priority: N $0 Priority: N $7,500 Priority: N $185,000 Priarity: N $30,000 Priority: N $75,000 Priority: N $15,000 Comm. Na. 062074 Printed: 121412006 ]?age 19 PrimRepartsdector City of Golden Valley Community Center/ Goff Operations Executive Summary Priority: N $1,560,000 23 (GCC) Golf Cart Storage: Relocate the golf cart storage space to be under the clubhouse. Would require total reconfiguration of the overall facility (area needed: approximately 8,000 S.F.). 24 (GCC) Patron Experience: Provide better signage that directs patrons from the parking lot(s) to the clubhouse. (AIlowance) 25 (GCC) Patron Experience: Provide a bag drop-off area, reconfigure traffic pattern. (Allowance) 26 (GCC) Patron Experience: Equip building with a backup generator. (Allowance) 27 (GCC) Patron Experience: Reconfigure concrete patio outside the Golf Shop to improve traffic flow and safety. (Allowance) 28 (GCC) Par Three Building - Increase the size of the building to accommodate up to ten (10) people. Provide a fully plumbed toilet room within the building. (Allowance) 29 (CC) Community Rooms: Replace the existing operable wall between rooms 101 and 102 with a soundproof operable wall. The existing wall is about 20'-0" long and 9'-0" tall, including modification to the structure. 30 (CC) Community Rooms; Replace the entire party wail between rooms 101 and 102 with a soundproof operable wall. The existing party wall is about 60'-0" long and 9'-0" tali. 31 (CC) Community Rooms: Provide three (3) community rooms approximately the same size as Room 102. Room 102 is about 1,950 S.F. (Add on approximately 6,000 S.F.) 32 (CC) Community Rooms: Provide a raised section of floor in Room 102, for presentations etc. - approximately 200 S.F. (Allowance) 33 (CC) Community Rooms: Reroute path to stairwell in Room 101. (Allowance) 34 (CC) Community Rooms: Replace floor finishes in rooms 1.01 and 102. Provide a different floor finish to designate a "dance floor." (Allowance) 35 (CC) Community Rooms: Provide built-in projection screens and audiovisual equipment in rooms 101 and 102. (Allowance) 35 (CC) Community Rooms: Provide an operable wall in Room 106. (Allowance) 37 (CC) Community Rooms: Provide a controom within Room 106. (Allowance) 38 (CC) Community Rooms: Provide breakout rooms adjacent to rooms 101 and 102. (Rooms at 250 S.F. each.) 39 (CC) Storage: Provide a storage space of about 600 S.F. (Allowance) 40 (CC) Lobby: Improve the "feel" of the lobby with more light and increased ceiling heights (Requires restructuring area.) (Allowance) 41 (CC) Kitchen: Increase the size of the kitchen to about 300 S.F. The existing space is about 150 S.F. The space should accommodate: double ovens, a large sink, an ice maker, a larger freezer, more counter top space and more general storage space. (Allowance) 42 (CC) Toilet Rooms: Reconfigure toilet rooms to be handicap accessible and increase the capacity of both rooms to accommodate five (5) or six (6) stalls. Cost for increased quantity and renovation. Comm No. 061074 Printed: 12/412006 Page 20 Priority: N $1,500 Priority: N $2,500 Priority: N $120,000 Priority: N $2,500 Priority. N $65,000 Priority: N $56,000 Priority: N $150,000 Priority: N $1,170,000 Priority: N $5,000 Priority: N $7,500' Priority: N $35,000 Priority, N $10,000 Priority: N $10,000 Priority: N $5,000 Priority: N $200,000 Priority: N $50,000 Priority: N $50,000 Priority: N $75,000 Priority: N $85,000 PrintRgott5etector Wo City of Golden Valley Executive Summary 43 (GC) Copy/office Supply/Mail Room: Provide a single room that serves as a copy room, office supply storage room, and mailroom (Allowance) 44 (CC) Data Room: Provide a dedicated, secure room for the computer server with A.C. (Allowance) 45 (CC) Conference Room: le. The Provide an additional conference room that can accommodate fifteen (15} to riventy.(20) peop existing conference room is about 290 S.F. and can accommodate ten (10) people. 46 (CC) Custodial Closet: Provide a larger custodial closet —'tile current space is about 45 S.F. (Allowance) 47 (CC) Climate Control: Provide occupants with the ability to better control the climate of the building. (See "Mechanical'.) 48 (CC) Vehicular Access: Provide a passenger drop-offlpick-up area. Reconfigure site. (Allowance) 49 (CC) Vehicular Access: Provide abetter access path for vehicles to the recreational equipment storage area. (Allowance) 5(} (CC) outdoor Space: Provide a secluded outdoor area for community center functions. (Allowance) 51 (CC) Office Space: Modify the reception desk counter top to meet handicap accessibility requirements. (Allowance) 52 (CC) Office Space: Prd,dde an additional private office for a part time senior staff member - the space needs to accommodate a computer workstation and a space to take registrations. (Allowance) 53 (GCC) Outdoor Space: Provide a separate outdoor "Patio" space for utilization by the Golf operations during events. Located north of the building. (.Allowance) Community Center/ Golf Operations Priority: N $2,500 Priority: N $7,500 Priority: N $75,000 Priority: N $15,000 Priority:, N $0 Priority: N $50,000 Priority. N $5,000 Priority: N $40,000 Priority: N $3,000 Priority: N $+15,000 Priority: $15,000 P8 e 21 PrintReport5elector Comm No- 062074 Priatet3: 1114/2IN16 g DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of Golden Valley Residential Study Methodology: This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 400 randomly selected residents of the City of Golden Valley. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers across the community between November 27' and December l 1', 2006. The average interview took twenty-seven minutes. In general, random samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of adult Golden Valley residents within f 5.0 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases. Residential Demographics: Golden Valley still retains the characteristics of both a mature, generally stable community combined with a significant element of transience, particularly among a segment of younger renters. The median longevity of adult residents is 14.8 years. Twenty percent of the sample report moving to the city during the past five years, while 25% have lived there for over three decades. In looking toward the future, the typical resident expects to remain in the community for at least another ten years, although seven percent envision leaving within the next five years. Forty-six percent of the households have individuals at least 55 years old; in fact, 39% of the households are composed entirely of over 55 year olds. Nineteen percent of the households with seniors in residence report participation in senior programs offered by the City of Golden Valley. Virtually all of the participants rate their experiences positively and see no specific offerings missing from the current array. Thirty-three percent of the households possess school -aged children and/or pre-schoolers. Eighty-two percent own their current residences, whereas eighteen percent rent. The average age of respondents is 54.3 years old. Fourteen percent of the sample fall into the 18- 34 year age range, with 28% 65 years old or older. Thirty-seven percent of the households are headed by up -scale White Collar job holders — Professional -Technical or Owner -Manager positions. Eighteen percent of the households are headed by Clerical -Sales people, while 15% are headed by Blue Collar job holders. Twenty-seven percent of the households within the community are headed by retirees. City of Golden Valley Executive Summary January, 2007 Residents are classified according to the precinct in which they live. Twenty-seven percent reside in Precincts 1 or 2; twenty-four percent in Precincts 3 or 4; twenty percent in Precincts 5 or 6; and, 30% in Precincts 7 and 8. Sixty-three percent are in the Robbinsdale Public School District, and 37% live in the Hopkins Public School District. Women outnumber men by six percent in the sample. Quality of Life Ratings: A solid 97% again rate the quality of life as either "excellent" or "good;" fifty percent rating it as "excellent," unchanged from the 2001 study. A small three percent post "only fair" or "poor" ratings. Ratings, then, held constant during the five-year period. "High Quality" and "Low Quality"Aspects of the Community: In thinking about "high quality" aspects of Golden Valley, 22% point to "city services," while 18% cite its "sense of community." "Park and recreation system" is critical to 13%, "safe" is key to 12%, while "location" is mentioned by nine percent. Seven percent consider "schools" as a high quality aspect of Golden Valley, and "well-maintained city" is posted by five percent. In discussing "low quality" aspects of the city, 16% are unable to respond to the query. Thirty- five percent are "boosters" — residents who see no "low quality" aspects of the community. This "booster" level is almost five times higher than the Metropolitan Area suburban norm, and is consistent with the 2001 study results. "Lack of retail and dining opportunities" and "crime" top the list at only eight percent each, followed by "rundown housing and neighborhoods" at seven percent. Issues facing the Community and its Direction: In thinking about serious issues facing the city, 25% point to "high taxes," twice the level in the 2001 study. "Crime" and "school funding" follow at nine percent each. Seven percent cite "too much growth," down from its 2001 level. Eighty-six percent feel the city is moving in the "right direction," unchanged from the 2001 study. Twelve percent think it is going "off on the wrong track." In general, residents endorse the direction of the city and its recent policies. Page 2 City of Golden Dalley Executive Summary January, 2007 Property Taxes and City Services: On the issues of property taxes and city services, residents take a very cautious approach. They split — 43% to 37% — in opposition to an increase in their property taxes if it were needed to maintain city services at their current levels; in 2001, residents split in favor of a property tax increase by a 47% to 43% margin. When asked about the property taxes in Golden Valley compared with nearby areas, 57% feel they are "high," a jump of 26% in five years. Twenty-three percent report they are "about average," one-half the level in the 2001 study. Seventy-seven percent rate Golden Valley city services as "excellent" or "good" in comparison with neighboring communities. Only eight percent see them as "only fair" or "poor," while 16% are unsure. Seventy-three percent consider the value of city services in terms of property taxes paid as either "excellent" or "good," down eight percent from the 2001 level. Fourteen percent rate it lower. Reflective of the increase in concern about property taxes, the perceived value of city services has slightly dropped. City Services Evaluations: City services evaluations are very positive. Police protection, fire protection, park maintenance, communications, snow plowing, and city street repair and maintenance score approval ratings of ninety percent or higher. Recycling and brush pick-up, storm drainage and flood control, animal control, and street lighting finish above the eighty percent positive threshold. City -sponsored recreation programs and Neighborhood Watch Programs exceed the seventy percent approval level; these lower approval ratings are due to uncertainty rather than to negative ratings. Five city service ratings improved by at least 10% since the last study: storm drainage and flood control, animal control, communications, street lighting, and city street repair and maintenance. In almost every case, these city service approval ratings are above or at the suburban norm. Eighty-six percent participate in the curbside recycling program by separating recyclable items from the rest of their garbage. Modest percentages suggest expanding the type of items picked up and providing larger bins. In discussing the enforcement of city codes, large majorities give high marks on two aspects. Sixty-nine percent think the enforcement of codes limiting the number of vehicles parked on a residential property is "about right;" nineteen percent say the enforcement is "not tough enough." And, 68% think the enforcement of codes limiting the storage of RVs on a residential property as "about right;" twelve percent think it is "not tough enough." Page 3 City of Golden Valley Executive Summary January, 2007 By a 64%-19% margin, residents oppose changing from the current garbage collection system in which residents may choose from several different haulers to a system where the City chooses a hauler for the whole community. However, by a 65%-20% margin, residents favor continuing to allow individual choices, but requiring all haulers to pick-up garbage on the same day in a neighborhood. Inflow and Infiltration: Forty-seven percent are aware of the issue of "Inflow and Infiltration." But, only 38% are aware the Metropolitan Council is charging cities for the added sewer system volume caused by Inflow and Infiltration, raising sanitary sewer fees and increasing city utility bills. Residential and Non -Residential Property: Seventy-two percent rate the general condition and appearance of industrial and commercial properties as either "excellent" or "good;" twenty-seven percent, however, rate them as "only fair" or "poor." A solid 72% would support licensing single and two-family residential properties when used for rental purposes, to assure the homes are well-maintained and safe. Only 15% oppose this proposal. A large 83% think Golden Valley's current housing supply is an adequate mix of all types of housing; fourteen percent disagree. Respondents seeing the mix as inadequate register a need for more "low income housing" and more "affordable housing." Seventy percent view the significant remodeling, additional property subdivisions, and the tearing down and reconstruction of homes in Golden Valley as a "good idea." Twenty-two percent, though, label this trend as a "bad idea." As a precaution, residents support a city ordinance limiting the size of residential additions and new construction by a 64%-22% margin. City Government and City Staff Sixty-one percent feel they could have an impact on the way things are run in Golden Valley; thirty-two percent think they could not. Overall, this level of empowerment is above the suburban area norm and the result is relatively unchanged from the 2001 study. Golden Valley residents, Page 4 City of Golden Valley Executive Summary January, 2007 then, feel connected to their local decision -makers. Thirty-seven percent report having a "great deal" or "fair amount" of knowledge about the work of the Mayor and City Council, down 13% from the 2001 level. Fifty-seven percent either "strongly approve" or "approve" of their job, while only twelve percent register disapproval. The eight percent decrease in approval ratings reflect an increase in uncertainty, not negativity. Positive ratings are based upon the "perception of a good job" and "lack of city problems;" critics point to an "unwillingness to listen" and "disagreement with City Council decisions." Thirty-five percent report having contact with the Golden Valley City Staff, this level of contact is unchanged from the 2001 study. Fifty-eight percent rate the staff as "excellent" or "good," down 14% from the 2001 level, while only six percent rate them critically, one-half of the 2001 level. These results reflect an increase of uncertainty, from 16% in 2001 to 36% in 2006. Positive evaluations are based on the "perception of a good job," "helpfulness," "friendliness," and "lack of problems in the community;" negative judgments are based upon "room for improvement" and "perception of a poor job." Parks and Recreation Issues: Usage of the various components of the park system vary markedly. During the past year, 65% of the households used community parks and/or neighborhood parks, down 11% in five years. Sixty-one percent used the city's trails, while 51% visit open spaces and natural areas. Thirty- three percent report using the Brookview Picnic Shelters. Twenty-six percent each visited the Brookview Golf Course or the Brookview Community Center. Only 13% report household members went to the Davis Community Center, also known as the Meadowbrook Community Center. Ninety-four percent feel the existing recreational facilities offered by the City meet the needs of their household, while a very small four percent feel they do not. Twenty percent of the sample, one-half the level in the 2001 study, report household members participated in City park and recreation programs. The most popular programs are "softball/baseball," "soccer," "children's activities," and "golf." Satisfaction with the offerings remains virtually unanimous. Ninety-four percent view the current mix of City park and recreation programming as meeting the needs of their households; only three percent disagree. Twenty-two percent say household members currently leave the city for park and recreational facilities and activities elsewhere; this level is 44% lower than the 2001 level. The most popular were "lakes," "swimming pools," and "walking trails." This level of recreational "leakage" to other communities is about 60% lower than the suburban norm. Page 5 City of Golden Valley Executive Summary January, 2007 Streets and Sidewalks: Sixty-one percent rate the City's sidewalk system as either "excellent" or "good," while 25% rate the system either "only fair" or "poor." The major reason for negative ratings is the "lack of existing sidewalks." Public Safety Issues: While 50% report there are no areas in the community where they would feel unsafe walking alone at night, 49% indicate there are such unsafe areas within the city. Twenty percent of the residents feeling there are unsafe areas specifically point to "Theodore Wirth Park." But, 57% of this group think "everywhere" in the community would be unsafe walking alone at night. Seventy-one percent feel safe in their immediate neighborhood walking alone at night, down 10% from the 2001 level. Eighty-three percent, nine percent higher than in 2001, think there is "about the right amount" of traffic enforcement by the police in their neighborhood, while 14% say there is "not enough" and one percent, "too much." On a related public safety issue, a very high 84%, up 14% since 2001, know the Golden Valley Fire Department operates as a paid on-call organization. Eight percent report there are members of their households who would consider becoming a firefighter in the city; no enticement, though, would change the mind of households who would not consider this opportunity. Transportation Issues: Fifty percent leave Golden Valley on a regular or daily basis to go to work, a decrease of five percent in five years. Seventeen percent do not leave the community to go to work, while 34% are currently unemployed or retired. Eighty-five percent of residents leaving the city rate the ease of getting to and from work as either "excellent" or "good;" sixteen percent are more negative in their evaluations. Similarly, 91% rate the ease of getting from place to place within the City of Golden Valley favorably; only eight percent are more critical. Fourteen percent of the sample report using public transportation during the past two years. Among public transit users, 83% rate their experience favorably, while 16% are more negative in their evaluations. Favorable ratings increase by ten percent in five years. Only 18% of the current Page 6 City of Golden Valley Executive Summary January, 2007 non-users would take public transportation if there were more routes and destinations offered. Among these potential users, 80% would still support an expansion in routes and destinations even if it meant more buses on residential streets, and 63% would still do so even if it mean more buses on their residential street. "Envision Golden Valley:" Sixty-seven percent of the respondents are aware of the "Envision Golden Valley" visioning program. Twenty percent report household members participated in the process. Less than 60% are aware of any of the six goals adopted by the City Council as a result of this visioning process. In fact, only 39% are aware of two goals: "started a long-term park master plan process" and "conducted a Council Social Gathering to meet informally with residents." Forty-five percent report awareness of "encouraged continued citizen involvement through "Connecting Golden Valley," while 47% are aware of "sponsorship of Mighty Tidy Day to encourage community clean-up." The high levels of awareness, 54% and 56%, respectively, are posted for: "adoption of stronger housing maintenance goals and enforcement" and "a study of zoning and development of the I-394 corridor." Sources of Information about City Government: The City Newsletter is regarded as the principal source of information about Golden Valley City Government and its activities by 58%, up 15% since the 2001 study. The city newsletter has clearly increased both its public awareness and its impact. Local newspapers are regarded as the principal source of information about city government and activities by 23%. Six percent rely upon the "grapevine," while five percent mention cable television. Fifty-eight percent prefer to receive information about City Government and its activities through the city's newsletter. Twenty percent prefer newspaper coverage. Five percent or less point to the "grapevine," "city's website," "cable television," "mailings," and "e-mail." In assessing the reach of various communications channels, the "Golden Valley City News" newsletter registers a very high reach of 95%, an increase of five percent over the 2001 level. Ninety percent of those receiving the city newsletter report regularly reading it. Twenty-nine percent sometimes clip parts and keep them around for later reference, while 34% toss it after reading. Thirty-seven percent, though, double the percentage in 2001, report saving or tossing the issue depending upon its coverage. Ninety-four percent rate the content of the newsletter Page 7 City of Golden Valley Executive Summary January, 2007 highly, while 19% rate the format and appearance of the newsletter favorably Sixty-seven percent of the surveyed households currently receive cable television, the same level as in the 2001 study. Among cable television subscribers, an impressive 53% report watching Cable 12 News either "frequently" or "occasionally." Among subscribers, a comparatively high 48% "frequently" or "occasionally" watch Golden Valley City Council Meeting live or taped telecasts during the past year. Forty-three percent report watching the Community Bulletin Board on Channel 16 during the past year. Thirty-three at least "occasionally" tune in to city programming, such as city updates and special meetings, and 32% similarly catch "Northwest Cities." Seventy-two percent report having access to the Internet from home or at work. In fact, 70% have access from their homes. Among those having access to the Internet, 46% connect through Comcast High -Speed Internet, 25% use DSL, and 16% have a dial-up modem at 56K speed. Forty-six percent report accessing the City's website – translating to 32% of the households across the community. The typical website visitor rates it as either "excellent" or "good," accesses the site less than once per month, is able to find what he/she is looking for, and tends to be concerned with information about park and recreational offerings, community events, general city information, and City Council Meeting minutes. By an unconvincing 38%-22% margin, residents support Golden Valley offering high-speed wireless service. But, a very large 41% are unsure. The typical supporter of a City -operated system would be willing to pay $20.00 for this high-speed Internet service. Conclusions and Implications: Once again, Golden Valley citizens remain very pleased with their community — city services, City Staff and City Council. In almost every case, very favorable ratings are either stable or improved from five years ago. Community identity and neighborliness remain at remarkably high levels for an inner -ring suburban community. Residents express great satisfaction with their current park and recreation system, and concerns about the sidewalk system have clearly abated. And, "boosterism," already extraordinarily strong, dramatically increases to include over one-third of the sample. There are two pressing concerns; however; one is a Metropolitan Area -wide issue while the other is a particular first -ring suburban issue. While anxiety about property taxes has significantly increased since the 2001 study; this increase is in line with a pattern found throughout the suburbs during 2006. It does, however, provide a cautionary constraint on the ability of City Councils to substantially raise their levies for program funding. The second concern, crime, is consistent with increases during the past year in the inner -ring suburban communities. In part, Page 8 City of Golden Valley Executive Summary January, 2007 this increase reflects events in Minneapolis, but residents appear less comfortable with the generally safe nature of the community, particularly in areas bordering Minneapolis. But, beyond these two issues, residents are markedly contented with their quality of life. Page 9 DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. City of Golden Valley 3128 Dean Court Residential Survey Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 FINAL DECEMBER 2006 Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a polling firm located in Minneapolis. We have been retained by the City of Golden Valley to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the community. This survey is being conducted because the City Council and City Staff are interested in your opinions and suggestions about current and future city needs. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. 1. Approximately how many years have you lived in Golden Valley? 2. As things now stand, how long in the future do you expect to live in Golden Valley? FIVE YEARS OR LESS .... 20% SIX TO TEN YEARS ...... 21% 11 TO 20 YEARS........ 22% 21 TO 30 YEARS........ 12% OVER THIRTY YEARS ..... 25% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% LESS THAN TWO YEARS .... 2% TWO TO FIVE YEARS ...... 5% FIVE TO TEN YEARS ..... 10% OVER TEN YEARS........ 26% REST OF LIFE.......... 48% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 9% 3. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT.............36% life in Golden Valley -- excel- GOOD..................61% lent, good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR..............3% POOR...................0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% Many people talk about "quality" these days. They might say something is "high quality" or "low quality." I'd like you to think about the City of Golden Valley for a moment. 4. When you think about this community, what comes to mind, if anything, as being "high quality?" UNSURE, 4%; SENSE OF COMMUNITY, 18%; CITY SERVICES, 22%; SAFE, 12%; LOCATION, 9%; PARKS AND RECREATION, 13%; WELL- MAINTAINED CITY, 5%; SCHOOLS, 7%; HOUSING, 4%; DOWNTOWN AREA, 30; NATURAL AREAS/OPEN SPACES, 2%; SCATTERED, 2%. 5. And, when you think about this community, what comes to mind, if anything, as being "low quality?" UNSURE, 160; NOTHING, 35%; TRAFFIC, 20; STREET REPAIR, 30; CITY GOVERNMENT, 2%; HIGH TAXES, 3%; LACK OF RECREA TIONAL PROGRAMS, 2%; RUNDOWN HOUSING/NEIGHBORHOODS, 7%; LACK OF SIDEWALKS, 3%; LACK OF RETAIL AND DINING, 8%; HIGH CRIME, 8%; DEER POPULATION, 2%; QUALITY OF SCHOOLS, 2%; LACK OF JOBS, 20; DON'T HAVE OWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, 2%; SCATTERED, 4%. 6. What do you think is the most important issue facing Golden Valley today? UNSURE, 15%; NOTHING, 150; HIGH TAXES, 250; TOO MUCH GROWTH, 7%; CRIME, 9%; TRAFFIC, 2%; SCHOOL FUNDING, 9%; CITY GOVERNMENT, 2%; LACK OF RETAIL, 2%; LACK OF AFFORD ABLE HOUSING, 4%; POOR STREET MAINTENANCE, 2%; RUNDOWN HOUSING/NEIGHBORHOODS, 4%; DEER POPULATION, 2%; LACK OF JOBS, 2%; SCATTERED, 2%. 7. All in all, do you think things in RIGHT DIRECTION ....... 86% Golden Valley are generally headed WRONG TRACK ........... 12% in the right direction, or do you DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 3% feel things are off on the wrong track? Moving on.... As you may know, property taxes are divided between the City of Golden Valley and various other units of local government. Thinking about the amount going to the City.... 8. Do you think the city portion of your property taxes, which funds City services in Golden Valley is very high, somewhat high, about av- erage, somewhat low or very low in comparison with nearby suburban communities? VERY HIGH.............18% SOMEWHAT HIGH......... 39% ABOUT AVERAGE ......... 23% SOMEWHAT LOW........... 0% VERY LOW...............0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 20% I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? (ROTATE) EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R 9. Police protection? 34% 60% 3% 1% 2% 10. Fire protection? 30% 65% 0% 1% 5% 11. Recycling and brush pick-up? 25% 64% 3% 0% 8% 12. Storm drainage and flood control? 13% 71% 2% 2% 12% 13. Park maintenance? 24% 69% 1% 0% 7% 14. City -sponsored recreation programs? 14% 59% 3% 0% 25% 15. Neighborhood Watch Programs? 14% 65% 3% 1% 19% 16. Animal control? 8% 72% 7% 20 11% 17. Communications, such as news- letters, cable television, media coverage and web site? 19% 77% 2% 1% 2% 18. Street lighting? 10% 76% 11% 3% 1% Now, for the next three city services, please consider only their job on city -maintained streets and roads. That means excluding interstate highways, state and county roads that are taken care of by other levels of government. Hence, Interstate 394, Highway 55, Highway 100, County Road 156 or Winnetka Avenue, should not be considered. How would you rate .... EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R 19. City street repair and maintenance? 16% 75% 7% 2% 1% 20. Snow plowing? 22% 74% 3% 0% 1% IF ANY SERVICE IS RATED "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR" IN QUESTIONS #9 TO #20, ASK: (N=146) 21. Why did you rate as (only fair/poor)? POOR STREET CONDITIONS, 20%; FLOOD CONTROLLING, 8%; LOOSE ANIMALS, 11%; NOT ENOUGH POLICE PATROLLING, 8%; NOT ENOUGH STREET LIGHTS, 26%; TOO MANY DEER, 8%; SLOW SERVICE, 30; BETTER COMMUNICATION, 4%; NEED BETTER ORGANIZED NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAM, 3%; POOR QUALITY OF SNOW PLOWING, 3%; MORE VARIETY OF RECREA TIONAL PROGRAMS, 3%; SCATTERED, 2%. 22. Would you favor or oppose a tax increase to improve ? (NAME CITY SERVICE, WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY FAVOR......... 2% FAVOR.................29% OPPOSE................45% STRONGLY OPPOSE........ 9% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 17% 23. How would you rate Golden Valley EXCELLENT.............15% city services in comparison with GOOD..................62% neighboring communities -- excel- ONLY FAIR..............8% lent, good, --only fair, or poor? POOR...................0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 16% 24. When you consider the property EXCELLENT..............8% taxes you pay and the quality of GOOD..................65% city services you receive, would ONLY FAIR.............13% you rate the general value of city POOR...................1% services as excellent, good, only DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 14% fair, or poor? 25. Would you favor or oppose an in- FAVOR.................36% crease in city property taxes, OPPOSE................43% if it were needed to maintain DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 21% city services at their current level? IF "OPPOSE," ASK: (N=173) 26. What services would you be willing to see cut? UNSURE, 100; NONE, 67%; PARKS AND RECREATION, 150; ADMINISTRATION, 2%; RECYCLING, 2%; STREET MAIN TENANCE, 3%; SCATTERED, 1%. Moving on.... 27. Are you aware of Inflow and Infil- tration, called "I and I," which is caused by utility customers improperly connecting sump pumps, foundation drains, and roof drains to the sanitary sewer system, leading to unnecessary treatment costs and higher operating costs for the sanitary sewer utility? YES...................47% NO....................52% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1% 28. Are you aware that the Metropoli- tan Council is charging cities for the added sewer system volume caused by Inflow and Infilitration or "I and I," which raises sani- tary sewer fees and increases your City utility bill? Moving on..... YES...................38% NO....................61% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1% 29. How would you rate the general EXCELLENT.............10% 14% condition and appearance of indus- GOOD..................62% trial and commercial properties -- ONLY FAIR.............26% excellent, good, only fair, or POOR...................1% 3% poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1% 30. Would you support or oppose licen- sing single and two-family resi- dential properties when used for rental purposes, in order to assure that the homes are well- maintained and safe? SUPPORT...............72% OPPOSE................15% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 13% 31. Do you think Golden Valley's cur- YES...................83% rent housing supply is an adequate NO....................14% mix of all types of housing? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 30 IF "NO," ASK: (N=57) 32. What type of housing do you think is needed in Golden Valley? UNSURE, 5%; LOW INCOME, 28%; STARTER HOMES, 11%; MIDDLE INCOME, 7%; HIGH END HOUSING, 2%; TOO MUCH MULTI -HOUSING, 2%; AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 320; AFFORD ABLE RENTAL UNITS, 7%; SENIOR HOUSING, 7%. Recent trends have encouraged significant remodeling, additional property subdivisions and even the tearing down and reconstruction of homes in Golden Valley. 33. Do you think this is a good idea GOOD IDEA/STRONGLY.... 14% or bad idea in the City of Golden GOOD IDEA.............56% Valley? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do BAD IDEA..............19% you feel strongly that way? BAD IDEA/STRONGLY ...... 3% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 9% 34. Do you support or oppose a city ordinance which would limit the size of residential additions and new construction in Golden Valley? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? Thinking about another topic.... STRONGLY SUPPORT...... 170 SUPPORT...............47% OPPOSE................19% STRONGLY OPPOSE........ 3% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 14% 35. Are there areas in Golden Valley YES...................49% traffic enforcement by where you would not feel safe NO ...................50% in your neighborhood -- walking alone at night? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1% IF "YES," ASK: (N=196) 36. What areas do you not feel safe walking alone at night? (PROBE) THEODORE WIRTH, 20%; EVERYWHERE, 57%; RETAIL AREAS, 4%; PARKS, 3%; MINNEAPOLIS BORDER, 6%; BASSETT CREEK, 2%; PARKING RAMPS, 3%; TRAILS, 2%; DOUGLAS DRIVE, 3%; SCATTERED, 2%. 37. Do you feel safe in your immediate YES...................71% neighborhood walking alone at NO ...................28% night? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1% 38. How would you rate the amount of TOO MUCH...............1% traffic enforcement by the police ABOUT RIGHT AMOUNT .... 83% in your neighborhood -- too much, NOT ENOUGH ............ 14% about right amount or not enough? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1% 39. Are you aware that fire protection in the City of Golden Valley is provided by paid on-call fire- fighters consisting of residents and corporate employees in the city? YES...................84% NO....................15% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1% 40. Would you or any members of your YES....................8% household ever consider becoming a NO....................89% firefighter in the city? DONFT KNOW/REFUSED..... 3% IF "NO," ASK: (N=354) 41. Could the City of Golden Valley offer anything to entice you or members of your household to become a firefighter? (IF "YES," ASK:) What would that be? NO, 990; HIGHER PAY THAN CURRENT JOB, 1%. Changing topics.... For each of the following, please tell me whether the City is too tough, about right, or not tough enough in enforcing city codes on the nuisances. Moving on..... 44. Do you participate in the curbside YES...................86% recycling program by separating NO....................13% recyclable items from the rest of DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1% your garbage? 45. Are there any changes or improvements you would make to the curbside recycling program? (IF "YES," ASK:) What would that be? UNSURE, 6%; NO, 72%; TAKE MORE VARIETY, 9%; BETTER COMMU NICATION ABOUT ACCEPTED ITEMS, 2%; BIGGER BINS, 6%; SINGLE SORT SYSTEM, 3%; SCATTERED, 2%. Most communities have one of two systems for refuse collection. In a multiple collection system, like the City of Golden Valley, residents choose their hauler from several different companies serving the community. Several other cities use an organized collection system, where the City contracts with one hauler for the entire community. In a multiple collection system, residents have the ability to choose, but many neighborhoods may have numerous trucks collecting garbage on their street at different times throughout the day and week. In a organized collection system, all residents are assigned a specific hauler, but only that company's truck appears in the neighborhood on a specific day. 46. Would you favor or oppose the City STRONGLY FAVOR......... 6% TOO NOT ABO DK/ TOU TOU RIG REF 42. The number of vehicles parked on a residential property? 4% 19% 680 9% 43. Storage of RVs on a residential property? 7% 12% 69% 12% Moving on..... 44. Do you participate in the curbside YES...................86% recycling program by separating NO....................13% recyclable items from the rest of DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1% your garbage? 45. Are there any changes or improvements you would make to the curbside recycling program? (IF "YES," ASK:) What would that be? UNSURE, 6%; NO, 72%; TAKE MORE VARIETY, 9%; BETTER COMMU NICATION ABOUT ACCEPTED ITEMS, 2%; BIGGER BINS, 6%; SINGLE SORT SYSTEM, 3%; SCATTERED, 2%. Most communities have one of two systems for refuse collection. In a multiple collection system, like the City of Golden Valley, residents choose their hauler from several different companies serving the community. Several other cities use an organized collection system, where the City contracts with one hauler for the entire community. In a multiple collection system, residents have the ability to choose, but many neighborhoods may have numerous trucks collecting garbage on their street at different times throughout the day and week. In a organized collection system, all residents are assigned a specific hauler, but only that company's truck appears in the neighborhood on a specific day. 46. Would you favor or oppose the City STRONGLY FAVOR......... 6% of Golden Valley changing from the current system in which residents may choose from several different haulers to a system where the City chooses a hauler for the whole community? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? FAVOR.................13% OPPOSE................52% STRONGLY OPPOSE....... 12% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 180 In another option, the City would continue to give residents the option of choosing their own hauler, but require all haulers to pick-up garbage on the same day in a neighborhood. 47. Would you favor or oppose the City STRONGLY FAVOR........ 18% of Golden Valley continuing to FAVOR.................47% allow residents to choose their OPPOSE................18% own hauler, but require all STRONGLY OPPOSE........ 2% haulers to pick-up garbage on the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 16% same day in a neighborhood? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? Continuing.... The Golden Valley park system is composed of larger community parks and smaller neighborhood parks, trails, community ball - fields, and open spaces and natural areas. Of these facilities, which have you or members of your household used during the past year? YES NO DK. 48. Community and/or neighborhood parks? 65% 35% 0% 49. Trails? 61% 39% 0% 50. Community ballfields? 24% 76% 0% 51. Open spaces and natural areas? 51% 490 0% 52. Brookview Golf Course? 26% 74% 0% 53. Brookview Community Center? 26% 74% 0% 54. The Davis Community Center, also known as the Meadowbrook Community Center? 13% 87% 0% 55. Brookview Picnic Shelters? 33% 67% 1% 56. In general, do you feel that YES...................94% existing recreational facilities NO ....................4% offered by the City meet the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 3% needs of you and members of your household? IF "NO," ASK: (N=16) 57. What additional recreational facilities would you like to see the City offer its residents? POOL, 440; TRAILS, 19%; BALLFIELDS, 60; COMMUNITY CENTER, 13%; TENNIS COURTS, 6%; ICE ARENA, 6%; SENIOR CENTER, 6%. During the past two years.... 58. Have you or members of your house- YES ...................20% hold participated in any City NO....................80% park and recreation programs? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% IF "YES," ASK: (N=81) 59. Which ones? (PROBE FOR SPECIFICS) SOFTBALL/BASEBALL, 42%; GOLF, 7%; SOCCER, 20%; DANCE/MUSIC, 4%; FITNESS, 2%; COMMUNITY EDUCATION, 4%; CHILDREN'S ACTIVITIES, 15%; MULTIPLE SPORTS, 5%; SCATTERED, 1%. 60. Were you satisfied or dis- satisfied with your exper- ience? SATISFIED.............99% DISSATISFIED ........... 0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1% 61. Does the current mix of City park YES...................94% and recreation programming meet NO.....................3% the needs of your household? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 4% IF "NO," ASK: (N=10) 62. What program(s) do you feel are lacking? UNSURE, 10%; SWIMMING LESSONS, 20%; PROGRAMS IN THE EVENING, 10%; MORE VARIETY OF YOUTH PROGRAMS, 50%; FITNESS PROGRAMS, 10%. 63. Do you or members of your household currently leave the city for park and recreation facilities or activities? (IF "YES," ASK:) What would that be? NO, 78%; LAKES, 5%; WALKING TRAILS, 3%; BIKING TRAILS, 1%; ICE ARENA, 1%; SWIMMING POOL, 6%; GOLF, 2%; FITNESS CENTER, 1%; SCATTERED, 3%. Changing topics.... 64. How would you rate the City's EXCELLENT..............6% sidewalk system -- excellent, GOOD..................65% good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR.............16% POOR...................9% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 4% IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR," ASK: (N=102) 65. Why did you rate it as (only fair/poor)? NOT ENOUGH SIDEWALKS, 87%; NEED MORE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, 8%; NEED BETTER MAINTENANCE, 5%. Moving on.... 66. Do you leave the City of Golden YES...................50% Valley on a regular or daily basis NO....................17% to go to work? NOT EMPLOYED/RETIRED..34% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% IF "YES," ASK: (N=199) 67. How would you rate the ease EXCELLENT.............20% of getting to and from work GOOD..................65% -- excellent, good, only fair ONLY FAIR.............15% or poor? POOR...................1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% 68. How would you rate the ease of EXCELLENT.............15% getting from place to place within GOOD..................76% the City of Golden Valley -- ex- ONLY FAIR..............8% cellent, good, only fair or poor? POOR...................0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1% 69. Have you used public transporta- YES...................14% tion during the past two years? NO....................86% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% IF "YES," ASK: (N=57) 70. How would you rate your ex- EXCELLENT.............16% perience -- excellent, good, GOOD..................67% only fair or poor? ONLY FAIR.............12% POOR...................4% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 2% IF "NO" IN QUESTION #69, ASK: (N=342) 71. Would you use public trans- YES...................18% portation if there were more NO....................80% routes and destinations DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 2% offered? IF "YES" ASK: (N=60) 72. Would you support or op- pose an expansion in public transportation routes and destinations if it meant more buses on residential streets? IF "YES," ASK: (N=48) 73. Would you still support an expan- sion in public transportation routes and destina- tions if it meant more buses on YOUR residential street? Changing topics.... SUPPORT...............80% OPPOSE................20% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% SUPPORT...............79% OPPOSE................17% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 4% 74. Other than voting, do you feel YES...................61% that if you wanted to, you could NO ...................32% have a say about the way the City DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 8% of Golden Valley runs things? 75. How much do you feel you know A GREAT DEAL ........... 2% about the work of the Mayor and A FAIR AMOUNT ......... 35% City Council -- a great deal, a VERY LITTLE ........... 48% fair amount, very little, or none NONE AT ALL........... 14% at all? you feel DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 2% 76. From what you know, do you approve STRONGLY APPROVE....... 3% or disapprove of the job the Mayor APPROVE...............54% and City Council are doing? (WAIT DISAPPROVE ............ 11% FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel STRONGLY DISAPPROVE.... 1% strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 32% IF A JUDGMENT IS GIVEN, ASK: (N=274) 77. Could you tell me why you feel that way? UNSURE, 20; NO PROBLEMS, 310; GOOD JOB, 260; SPECIF IC ISSUE, 60; DON'T LISTEN, 60; NICE CITY, 40; GOOD CITY SERVICES, 2%; GOOD COMMUNICATION, 70; HELPFUL, 2%; COULD IMPROVE, 5%; LISTEN, 5%; POOR SPENDING, 4%. 78. How much first hand contact have QUITE A LOT ............ 4% you had with the Golden Valley SOME..................31% City staff -- quite a lot, some, VERY LITTLE ........... 36% very little, or none? NONE..................28% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1% 79. From what you have heard or seen, EXCELLENT..............9% how would you rate the job per- GOOD..................49% formance of the Golden Valley ONLY FAIR..............5% City staff -- excellent, good, POOR...................1% only fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 36% IF A JUDGMENT IS GIVEN, ASK: (N=256) 80. Could you tell me why you feel that way? UNSURE, 2%; NO PROBLEMS, 5%; GOOD JOB, 80; SPECIFIC ISSUE, 2%; POOR JOB, 4%; GOOD CITY SERVICES, 6%; GOOD COMMUNICATION, 6%; HELPFUL, 48%; FRIENDLY, 18%; COULD IMPROVE, 3%. Changing topics.... As you may know, the City of Golden Valley involved residents in a visioning program for the future of Golden Valley. This program was called "Envision Golden Valley." 81. Were you aware of "Envision YES...................67% Golden Valley?" NO....................33% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1% 82. Did you or any members of your YES...................20% household participate in "Envision NO....................80% Golden Valley?" DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1% I am going to read you a list of goals the City Council adopted, which were also identified as priorities through "Envision Golden Valley." For each one, please tell me if you were aware of it or not. YES NO DKR 83. A study of zoning and development Moving on...... 89. What is your principal source of information about Golden Valley City Government and its activities? NOTHING, 2%; LOCAL NEWSPAPER, 23%; CITY NEWSLETTER, 58%; WORD OF MOUTH, 6%; WEBSITE, 3%; MEETINGS, 2%; CABLE TV, 5%; SCATTERED, 2%. 90. How would you prefer to receive information about Golden Valley City Government and its activities? NONE, of the I-394 corridor? 560 43% 1% 84. Adoption of stronger housing CABLE TV, 5%; MAILINGS, 3%; E-MAIL, 2%; SCATTERED, 2%. maintenance goals and enforcement? 54% 46% 0% 85. Sponsorship of Mighty Tidy Day to encourage community clean-up? 47% 53% 1% 86. Started a long-term park master plan process? 39% 61% 1% 87. Encouraged continued citizen involvement through "Connecting Golden Valley?" 45% 54% 1% 88. Conducted a Council Social gathering to meet informally with residents? 39% 61% 1% Moving on...... 89. What is your principal source of information about Golden Valley City Government and its activities? NOTHING, 2%; LOCAL NEWSPAPER, 23%; CITY NEWSLETTER, 58%; WORD OF MOUTH, 6%; WEBSITE, 3%; MEETINGS, 2%; CABLE TV, 5%; SCATTERED, 2%. 90. How would you prefer to receive information about Golden Valley City Government and its activities? NONE, 2%; LOCAL NEWSPAPER, 20%; CITY NEWSLETTER, 58%; WORD OF MOUTH, 5%; WEBSITE, 4%; CABLE TV, 5%; MAILINGS, 3%; E-MAIL, 2%; SCATTERED, 2%. 91. During the past year, did you YES...................95% receive the "Golden Valley City NO ....................5% News," the City's newsletter which DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% comes out every other month? IF "YES," ASK: (N=379) 92. Do you or any members of your YES...................90% household regularly read it? NO ...................10% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% IF "YES," ASK: (N=340) 93. How would you rate the content of the newslet- ter -- excellent, good, only fair, or poor? EXCELLENT.............14% GOOD..................80% ONLY FAIR..............6% POOR...................0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% 94. How would you rate the. EXCELLENT.............15% format and appearance of GOOD..................76% the newsletter -- excel- ONLY FAIR..............9% lent, good, only fair, POOR...................0% or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1% 95. Are there any changes or improvements you would make to the City's newsletter? NO, 90%; MORE FREQUENT, 20; BLACK AND WHITE, 2%; LARGER PRINT, 20; SCATTERED, 4%. 96. Do you sometimes clip the entire page or a specific article for future reference, or do you throw it away or re- cycle after you have read it? SOMETIMES CLIP........ 29% THROW AWAY/RECYCLE.... 34% BOTH (VOL.) ........... 37% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% 97. Does your household currently sub- YES...................67% scribe to cable television? NO ...................33% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% IF "YES, " ASK: (N=269) I would like to read you a short list of programs shown on Golden Valley Government Channels. For each one, please tell me if you frequently watch it, occasionally watch it, or do not watch it. 98. Bulletin Board listing of meetings, events and information? 99. Live or taped re -broadcasts of City Council meetings? 100. Cable 12 News? 101. Northwest Cities? 102. City programming, such as city updates and special meetings? FRQ OCC DNT DKR 60 37% 57% 0% 10% 38% 52% 0% 10% 43% 47% 0% 3% 29% 67% 1% 3% 30% 67% 1% 103. Do you have access to the Internet HOME ONLY.............36% at home only, at work only, at WORK ONLY..............2% both home and work, or at neither BOTH HOME AND WORK .... 34% place? NEITHER PLACE......... 28% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% IF INTERNET ACCESS AT HOME, ASK: (N=277) 104. How do you connect to the internet at home --on a dial- up modem at 28K, on a dial-up modem at 56K, DSL, T-1 line, Comcast High Speed Internet, or some other way? (IF "OTHER," ASK:) How? YES/DIAL-UP AT 28K.....5% YES/DIAL-UP AT 56K....16% YES/DSL...............25% YES/T-1................0% YES/COMCAST HI SPEED..46% YES/WIRELESS ........... 2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 5% IF "HOME,""WORK," OR "BOTH," IN #103, ASK: (N=287) 105. Have you accessed the City's website? IF "YES," ASK: (N=131) 106. How would you rate the city's website -- excel- lent, good, only fair, or poor? 107. How often do you visit the website -- daily, weekly, monthly, less often, or whenever needed? 108. Were you able to find what you were looking for? YES...................46% NO....................53% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1% EXCELLENT..............2% GOOD..................84% ONLY FAIR.............12% POOR...................1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1% DAILY..................0% WEEKLY.................4% MONTHLY...............11% LESS OFTEN ............ 35% WHENEVER NEEDED....... 50% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% YES...................92% NO.....................5% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 2% 109. What information were you looking for? UNSURE, 120; PARK AND RECREATION, 31%; PLANNING/ZONING, 80; COMMUNITY EVENTS, 10%; CITY SERVICE INFORMATION, 2%; GENERAL INFORMATION, 9%; COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, 9%; CODES/ORDINANCES, 6%; RECYCLING, 11%; LICENSING, 2%; ROAD CON STRUCTION, 2%. 110. What information would you like to see on the City of Golden Valley's web site? UNSURE, 26%; NONE, 40%; PARKS AND RECREATION, 7%; PLANNING/ZONING, 70; COMMUNITY EVENTS, 3%; GENERAL INFORMATION, 8%; COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, 3%; SCAT TERED, 6%. As you may know, some cities are starting to offer for-profit services, such as high-speed wireless Internet, to their resi- dents. The high-speed wireless Internet service is somewhat faster than dial-up, but somewhat slower than cable or DSL. Also, it is less expensive than cable or DSL, but more expensive than dial-up. 111. Would you support or oppose Golden STRONGLY SUPPORT....... 7% Valley offering wireless high- SUPPORT...............31% speed Internet access? (WAIT FOR OPPOSE................16% RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly STRONGLY OPPOSE........ 6% way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 41% IF "STRONGLY SUPPORT" OR "SUPPORT," ASK: (N=149) 112. How much would you be willing LESS THAN $20.00......30% to pay for wireless high- $20.00 ................30% speed Internet service of- $25.00 ................24% fered by the City of Golden $30.00 .................6% Valley? Would you be willing $35.00 .................0% to pay $ per month? MORE THAN $35.00.......0% (CHOOSE RANDOM STARTING DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 11% POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN DE- PENDING ON ANSWER) How about $ per month? (REPEAT PROCESS) Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes.... Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. 113. Persons 55 or over? NONE..................54% ONE...................16% TWO OR MORE ........... 30% IF "ONE" OR MORE, ASK: (N=185) 114. Have any household members YES...................19% participated in any senior NO....................81% programs offered by the City DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1% of Golden Valley? IF "YES," ASK: (N=35) 115. How would you rate that EXCELLENT.............26% experience -- excellent, GOOD..................71% good, only fair or poor? ONLY FAIR..............3% POOR...................0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% 116. Do you feel there are any programs lacking or missing? (IF "YES," ASK:) What are they? UNSURE, 3%; NO, 97%. 117. Adults under 55? NONE..................39% ONE...................11% TWO...................48% THREE OR MORE.......... 3% 118. School -aged children and pre- schoolers? 119. Do you own or rent your present residence? NONE..................67% ONE...................15% TWO...................15% THREE OR MORE.......... 30 OWN...................82% RENT..................18% REFUSED................0% 120. What is your age, please? 18-24 ..................40 25-34 .................100 35-44 .................240 45-54 .................180 55-64 .................18% 65 AND OVER ........... 28% REFUSED................0% 121. What is your occupation and, if applicable, the occupation of your spouse or partner? REFUSED, 3%; PROFESSIONAL -TECHNICAL, 24%; OWNER -MANAGER, 13%; CLERICAL -SALES, 18%; BLUE COLLAR, 15%; RETIRED, 270; SCATTERED, 10. 122. Gender. 123. Precinct 124. School District MALE..................47% FEMALE................53% PRECINCT 1............120 PRECINCT 2............15% PRECINCT 3............12% PRECINCT 4............12% PRECINCT 5............100 PRECINCT 6............100 PRECINCT 7............180 PRECINCT 8............12% ROBBINSDALE SD ........ 63% HOPKINS SD ............ 37% CD stloo -f—j mr� 0 L. am 0 N A Nw- 1w U) C: cu cu _0 a) a) n 0 Q LL CD U) U) vi Q) tt cu cu z Cl) X LLJ0 0 LL M (n c 0 a) (L) a) CL cu z > M a) a) a) > D 0- 0 0 07 a) 0 > < a) Q) 0 C N U cn a) U) c N -0 cn _0 O cn �_ O >- � a) m C:_0 Ma) : U a) 0 0 .• O I,,- 0 C� • O LO Al O M O N O V - m J O 0 N .0 a) C) 4-4 c6 O � Q E Q _r Q N E N O O (n Z 00 O I,,- CD co O LO O d' O coO O T- WE LTJ 0O U) U � c -� -t c � U � Q. � Q C N ' Q Q x Q a) co ca (a D 70 m t IL X O 3:L- N -o_0 Q C. ) C:m C c W O (D m J :3 O s- LL -O cn J ca a) a) 0) c cn 0 CL > p n- Q 00 O I,,- CD co O LO O d' O coO O T- WE LTJ C* „ Open Space and Recreation Commission 2006 PARK PLANNING CITIZEN SURVEY RESULTS 1. How would you rate the quality of parks in Golden Valley? #0 No Answer= 01.7% #1 Excellent = 33.3% #2 Good = 59.4% #3 Only Fair = 04.9% #4 Poor = 00.6% 2. How safe do you feel in Golden Valley parks? #0 No Answer = 01.4% #1 Very Safe = 60.9% #2 Somewhat Safe = 35.1% #3 Somewhat Unsafe = 02.3% #4 Very Unsafe = 00.3% 3. How well do you think the existing parks and facilities meet the needs of you and members of your household? #0 No Answer = 01.7% #1 Very Well = 44.3% #2 Somewhat Well = 44.9% #3 Not to Well = 07.8% #4 Not at All = 01.2% 4. A) Do you or members of your household leave Golden Valley for neighboring cities' facilities and/or activities? #0 No Answer = 03.5% #1 Yes = 73.6% #2 No = 22.9% B) If yes, what facilities and/or activities do you leave Golden Valley for? #0 No Answer = 29.9% #15 Nature Centers/Bird Watching = 01.7% #1 Better Basketball Courts = 00.6% #16 Parks/Playgrounds = 07.8% #2 Bike Trails = 06.1% #17 Pool/Swimming = 17.1% #3 Canoeing/Camping/Boating = 00.0% #18 Rollerblading Trails = 00.3% #4 Day Camps = 00.3% #19 Senior Programs = 01.7% #5 Dog Park = 02.3% #20 Skateboard Park = 00.3% #6 Family Activities = 00.6% #21 Skiing (downhill & crosscountry) = 00.3% #7 Fitness Club = 02.0% #22 Soccer = 00.3% #8 Flag football = 00.6% #23 Softball/Little League = 02.0% #9 Frisbee Golf = 00.9% #24 Tennis = 02.0% #10 Golf = 02.9% #25 Theater/Concerts/Culture = 04.1% #11 Gymnastics = 00.0% #26 Volleyball = 00.9% #12 Hiking = 00.0% #27 Walking Trails (lakes = 12.5% #13 Indoor Hockey/Iceskating = 02.6% #28 Windsurfing = 00.3% #14 LaCrosse = 00.0% 5 11 A) Please check the parks you have visited most in the past year: (Limit of 5). B) Circle the park you use the most. Top 1 #1 Brookview Park = 61.7% #3 Brookview Golf Course = 05.5% #4 Gearty Park = 04.9% #2 Brookview Community Ctr = 04.3% #10 Lions Park = 03.5% Top 2 #2 Brookview Community Ctr= 23.8% #10 Lions Park = 10.7% #3 Brookview Golf Course = 10.4% #0 No Answer = 10.4% #7 Hampshire Park = 07.8% Top 3 #0 No Answer #10 Lions Park #3 Brookview Golf Course #25 Wirth Park (Mpls. Park) #18 Scheid Park Top 2 #2 Brookview Community Ctr= 23.8% #10 Lions Park = 10.7% #3 Brookview Golf Course = 10.4% #0 No Answer = 10.4% #7 Hampshire Park = 07.8% Top 5 #0 No Answer #25 Wirth Park (Mpls. Park) #23 Wesley Park #30 General Mills Research #27 Bassett Creek Top 2 #2 Brookview Community Ctr= 23.8% #10 Lions Park = 10.7% #3 Brookview Golf Course = 10.4% #0 No Answer = 10.4% #7 Hampshire Park = 07.8% A) Check your top 5 activities: (check only five). B) Circle the one most important to you. Top 1 #1 Walking for Pleasure #3 Bicycling #2 Swimming #0 No Answer #4 Exercising pet(s) Top 3 Top 4 No Answer = 26.4% #0 No Answer = 45.5% = 11.6% #25 Wirth Park (Mpls. Park) = 07.8% = 08.1% #18 Scheid Park = 07.0% = 06.1% #10 Lions Park = 05.5% = 06.1% #11 Medley Park = 04.6% = 42.6% #0 B) Use Most = 44.3% = 60.9% #0 No Answer = 59.4% = 08.1% #1 Brookview Park = 06.1% = 05.2% #10 Lions Park = 04.6% = 03.8% #23 Wesley Park = 04.3% = 02.3% #18 Scheid Park = 03.8% A) Check your top 5 activities: (check only five). B) Circle the one most important to you. Top 1 #1 Walking for Pleasure #3 Bicycling #2 Swimming #0 No Answer #4 Exercising pet(s) Top 2 = 79.1% Top 3 #0 No Answer #9 Playground Equipment #5 Relaxing (reading) #4 Exercising pet(s) #3 Bicycling Top 2 = 79.1% Top 5 #0 No Answer #21 Using Fitness Trail #16 Ice Skating #10 Visiting Gardens #19 Playing Soccer Top 2 = 79.1% #3 Bicycling = 31.9% = 06.4% #2 Swimming = 16.2% = 03.8% #4 Exercising pet(s) = 13.3% = 02.3% #5 Relaxing (reading) = 07.8% = 02.0% #6 Golfing = 06.4% Top 4 = 13.6% #0 No Answer = 25.8% = 12.2% #16 Ice Skating = 09.6% = 10.4% #9 Playground Equipment = 09.3% = 10.1% #10 Visiting Gardens = 09.0% = 09.6% #12 Tennis = 07.2% B) Most Important = 42.6% #0 No Answer = 44.3% = 09.0% #1 Walking for Pleasure = 15.1% = 07.5% #10 Visiting Gardens = 09.3% = 05.8% #3 Bicycling = 06.1% = 05.5% #4 Exercising pet(s) = 05.2% 7. City recreation programs and facilities serve various purposes within a city. Circle how valuable you believe each purpose is to you or your household? A) Provide recreational opportunities for: 1. Children #0 No answer = 07.0% #1 Not Important at All = 09.6% #2 Not to Important = 04.9% #3 Somewhat Important = 11.6% #4 Very Important = 67.0% 2. Teens #0 No answer = 10.1% #1 Not Important at All = 12.5% #2 Not to Important = 07.0% #3 Somewhat Important = 22.6% #4 Very Important = 47.8% 3. Community members with disabilities #0 No answer = 14.5% #1 Not Important at All = 14.5% #2 Not to Important = 15.7% #3 Somewhat Important = 27.0% #4 Very Important = 28.4% 4. Adults, 18 to 64 years old #0 No answer = 010.4% #1 Not Important at All = 03.5% #2 Not to Important = 08.1% #3 Somewhat Important = 33.3% #4 Very Important = 44.6% 5. Adults, over 65 years of age #0 No answer = 11.0% #1 Not Important at All = 11.0% #2 Not to Important = 12.5% #3 Somewhat Important = 29.9% #4 Very Important = 35.7% B) Maintain and improve the: 1. Physical health of our community #0 No answer = 10.1% #1 Not Important at All = 01.7% #2 Not to Important = 04.1% #3 Somewhat Important = 20.3% #4 Very Important = 63.8% 2. Mental well-being of the community #0 No answer = 11.6% #1 Not Important at All = 02.6% #2 Not to Important = 08.1% #3 Somewhat Important = 19.1% #4 Very Important = 58.6% 8. How important it is to you and your household for Golden Valley to: 1) Maintain existing parks, green spaces, and athletic fields #0 No answer = 00.9% #1 Not Important at All = 00.3% #2 Not to Important = 02.0% #3 Somewhat Important = 12.8% #4 Very Important = 84.1% 2) Keep facilities open as many hours as possible #0 No answer = 03.5% #1 Not Important at All = 02.9% #2 Not to Important = 14.8% #3 Somewhat Important = 41.2% #4 Very Important = 37.7% 3) Develop vacant parks/land #0 No answer = 04.3% #1 Not Important at All = 19.7% #2 Not to Important = 21.4% #3 Somewhat Important = 29.9% #4 Very Important = 24.6% 4) Acquire new park land and/or nature areas #0 No answer = 02.3% #1 Not Important at All = 15.4% #2 Not to Important = 23.5% #3 Somewhat Important = 24.3% #4 Very Important = 34.5% 5) Develop new athletic fields #0 No answer = 04.6% #1 Not Important at All = 25.2% #2 Not to Important = 30.7% #3 Somewhat Important = 28.7% #4 Very Important = 10.7% 9. City parks serve various purposes within a community. How valuable each purpose is to you and your household. 1) Provide visual `green spaces' within the city #0 No answer = 02.0% #1 Not Important at All = 02.3% #2 Not to Important = 04.3% #3 Somewhat Important = 22.8% #4 Very Important = 67.5% 2) Provide a place for rest and relaxation #0 No answer = 01.7% #1 Not Important at All = 02.3% #2 Not to Important = 09.9% #3 Somewhat Important = 31.6% #4 Very Important = 54.5% 3) Provide natural open lands or wildlife habitat within the city #0 No answer = 01.4% #1 Not Important at All = 03.8% #2 Not to Important = 09.6% #3 Somewhat Important = 27.0% #4 Very Important = 58.3% 4) Provide open lawn/play space (e.g., tag, Frisbee, croquet, etc.) #0 No answer = 02.9% #1 Not Important at All = 05.5% #2 Not to Important = 12.8% #3 Somewhat Important = 38.8% #4 Very Important = 40.0% 5) Provide playground equipment for children #0 No answer = 02.6% #1 Not Important at All = 04.9% #2 Not to Important = 09.0% #3 Somewhat Important = 24.9% #4 Very Important = 58.6% 6) Provide developed spaces for field sports (e.g., soccer, football, lacrosse) #0 No answer = 03.2% #1 Not Important at All = 10.1% #2 Not to Important = 18.3% #3 Somewhat Important = 33.9% #4 Very Important = 34.5% 7) Provide a place for group gatherings #0 No answer = 02.9% #1 Not Important at All = 04.9% #2 Not to Important = 17.1% #3 Somewhat Important = 44.9% #4 Very Important = 30.1% 8) Provide a place to exercise pets #0 No answer = 03.2% #1 Not Important at All = 25.5% #2 Not to Important = 24.1% #3 Somewhat Important = 22.9% #4 Very Important = 24.3% 9) Provide opportunities for court sports (e.g., tennis, basketball) #0 No answer = 02.9% #1 Not Important at All = 09.6% #2 Not to Important = 22.0% #3 Somewhat Important = 38.8% #4 Very Important = 26.7% 10) Provide annual flower plantings #0 No answer = 02.0% #1 Not Important at All = 12.8% #2 Not to Important = 29.0% #3 Somewhat Important = 30.7% #4 Very Important = 25.5% 10. Parks and recreational opportunities are being studied in Golden Valley. How likely you would be to use the following items if provided by the city. 1) A neighborhood park, located within a particular neighborhood, designed to meet the needs of the neighborhood in which it is located. = 03.8% #0 No answer = 02.6% #1 Not Likely at All = 06.7% #2 Not to Likely = 11.3% #3 Somewhat Likely = 22.6% #4 Very Likely = 56.8% 2) A community park, located in a central location designed to meet the needs of the entire community #0 No answer = 03.8% #1 Not Likely at All = 08.4% #2 Not to Likely = 18.8% #3 Somewhat Likely = 33.6% #4 Very Likely = 35.4% 11 3) A linear park, that runs along creeks or streams and includes trails #0 No answer = 02.3% #1 Not Likely at All = 04.9% #2 Not to Likely = 10.4% #3 Somewhat Likely = 28.7% #4 Very Likely = 53.6% 4) Indoor recreation facilities, such as a recreation center #0 No answer = 03.5% #1 Not Likely at All = 17.1% #2 Not to Likely = 21.7% #3 Somewhat Likely = 27.8% #4 Very Likely = 29.9% 5) Indoor or outdoor swimming pool #0 No answer = 03.8% #1 Not Likely at All = 21.2% #2 Not to Likely = 16.5% #3 Somewhat Likely = 19.4% #4 Very Likely = 39.1% 6) Undeveloped open space, or nature areas #0 No answer = 02.9% #1 Not Likely at All = 11.3% #2 Not to Likely = 21.7% #3 Somewhat Likely = 31.3% #4 Very Likely = 32.8% A) The city is studying what types of facilities residents would like to see at a park site. Check the top 5 choices for you and your household: B) your most important. Top 1 Top 2 #4 Multi -use Trails = 29.6% #4 Multi -use Trails = 21.7% #1 Athletic Fields = 25.5% #8 Playgrounds/Equipment = 13.9% #3 Lighted Areas = 18.8% #9 Restrooms = 12.8% #2 Disc Golf Course = 05.5% #6 Pavilions or Shelters = 11.0% #9 Restrooms = 04.3% #7 Picnic Areas = 11.0% Top 3 Top 4 #9 Restrooms = 18.6% #9 Restrooms = 20.6% #8 Playgrounds/Equipment = 18.3% #0 No Answer = 19.7% #7 Picnic Areas = 12.2% #15 Bike Trails = 13.3% #0 No Answer = 11.9% #10 Stage Area Concerts = 09.6% #6 Pavilions or Shelters = 07.8% #7 Picnic Areas = 07.0% C) Is there anything not listed above that you would like to see? #0 Top 5 = 74.2% #24 B) Most Important = 09.9% #0 No Answer = 35.1% #0 No Answer = 49.0% #15 Bike Trails = 17.1% #4 Multi -use Trails = 10.7% #17 Ice Skating Rinks = 16.8% #14 Dog Park = 07.5% #9 Restrooms = 06.4% #9 Restrooms = 07.0% #11 Tennis Courts = 04.9% #8 Playgrounds/Equipment = 06.7% C) Is there anything not listed above that you would like to see? #0 No answer = 74.2% #24 Pool / Waterpark = 09.9% #22 Multi-purp. Trails (Lighted) = 02.0% #15 Garden area /Wild flower = 01.2% #37 Wading Pool = 01.2% 12. Which of the following locations would you like to see trails in Golden Valley? (check all that apply) #1 Along creeks = 62.0% #7 Along main thoroughfares = 22.40 #2 Connecting to neighborhoods = 49.6% #8 From other cities = 26.4% #3 Only in City parks = 04.3% #9 Behind/In Front of my house = 07.5% #4 Connected to future trails = 53.6% #10 Within the City = 21.4% #5 Along utility right-of-ways = 15.7% #11 Connected to City Center = 26.4% #6 Connected to schools = 20.3% 13. Do you feel the current city Trail system is properly marked and easy to follow? #0 No Answer = 19.4% #1 Yes = 29.3% #2 No = 51.3% 14. How important you feel it is to construct the following recreational facilities in Golden Valley. 1) Community Center 04.9% #0 No answer = 02.9% #1 Very Important = 21.4% #2 Somewhat Important = 16.2% #3 Not to Important = 29.9% #4 Not Important at All = 29.6% 2) Nature/Interpretive Center #0 No answer = 04.9% #1 Very Important = 25.5% #2 Somewhat Important = 26.4% #3 Not to Important = 30.4% #4 Not Important at All = 12.8% 3) Outdoor Aquatic Facility #0 No answer = 03.5% #1 Very Important = 29.3% #2 Somewhat Important = 19.4% #3 Not to Important = 18.6% #4 Not Important at All = 29.3% 15. Are there any facilities not mentioned that you would like the City to consider for development in Golden Valley? #0 No Answer = 73.6% #37 Wading Pool = 03.5% #12 Exercise for Seniors = 03.2% #8 Bike Trails (connections) = 02.9% #1 Amphitheater = 01.7% 16. Is Brookview Community Center adequate for Golden Valley needs? #0 No Answer = 16.2% #1 Yes = 50.1% #2 No = 33.6% If no, please explain #0 No Answer = 66.7% #17 Too Small = 11.9% #12 Needs Renovating = 04.9% #11 Needs a Pool = 04.3% #16 Too Old = 02.0% 17. The park and recreation master plan may recommend the construction or renovation of several facilities. If it necessary to improve Golden Valley Park facilities, would you support an increase in taxes to provide the additional funding? #0 No Answer = 02.0% #1 Strongly Support = 16.8% #2 Support = 52.5% #3 Oppose = 15.9% #4 Strongly Oppose = 12.8% 18. What increase in property taxes per year would you support to construct or build new facilities? #0 No Answer = 04.9% #1 $0 - No Increase = 21.7% #2 $1 - $15 per year = 14.8% #3 $16 - $29 per year = 16.8% #4 $30 - $45 per year = 16.8% #5 $46 - $59 per year = 12.5% #6 Over $60 per year = 12.5% 19. What increase in property taxes per year would you support to maintain existing facilities? #0 No Answer = 05.2% #1 $0- No Increase = 19.1% #2 $5 - $10 per year = 20.0% #3 $11 - $15 per year = 12.2% #4 $16 - $20 per year = 15.4% #5 $21 - $30 per year = 10.4% #6 $31 - $40 per year = 17.7% 20. How many years have you lived in Golden Valley? #0 No Answer = 00.6% #1 Less than Five years = 17.7% #2 Five to 10 Years = 21.7% #3 11 to 20 years = 23.2% #4 More than 20 years = 36.8% 21. How many more years do you expect to live in Golden Valley? #0 No Answer = 02.0% #1 Less than Two years = 03.5% #2 Two to Five Years = 08.7% #3 Six to 10 years = 23.8% #4 11 or more years = 62.0% 22. In which section of Golden Valley do you live? #0 No Answer = 00.9% #1 North of Hwy 55 & West of Douglas = 40.6% #2 South of Hwy 55 = 27.2% #3 North of Hwy 55 & East of Douglas = 31.3% 23. Age of the person completing this survey #0 No Answer = 00.3% #1 Under 18 years = 00.9% #2 18 - 29 years = 03.5% #3 30 - 45 years = 37.4% #4 46 - 60 years = 30.7% #5 60 plus years = 27.2% 24. Do you have children under the age of 18 at home? (check all that apply) No Children = 53.9% Under Six years = 21.7% Age Six to 12 years = 22.9% Age 13 - 18 years = 14.5%